Well, the article says "an entity like WikiLeaks," and appears to be referring to its statelessness and ability (or at least willingness) to stay online despite governmental efforts to take the service down. You may be right that WikiLeaks itself is a low-quality or irresponsible example of such an entity, but I still think it's a valid point that these types of entities are beneficial.
Absolutely. I'm completely on board with the concept of an organization acting as an information clearing house for leakers; I just feel that Wikileaks is the wrong organization to be doing the job.
Whether it's intentionally making releases dripping with spin or the inability to function internally (e.g., resulting in the destruction of the Citibank documents), it's clear to me that Wikileaks just isn't up to the job of serving as that sort of clearing house in a credible manner.
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be anyone else stepping up to the plate to take up that challenge at the moment.
Comments
Well, the article says "an entity like WikiLeaks," and appears to be referring to its statelessness and ability (or at least willingness) to stay online despite governmental efforts to take the service down. You may be right that WikiLeaks itself is a low-quality or irresponsible example of such an entity, but I still think it's a valid point that these types of entities are beneficial.
Absolutely. I'm completely on board with the concept of an organization acting as an information clearing house for leakers; I just feel that Wikileaks is the wrong organization to be doing the job.
Whether it's intentionally making releases dripping with spin or the inability to function internally (e.g., resulting in the destruction of the Citibank documents), it's clear to me that Wikileaks just isn't up to the job of serving as that sort of clearing house in a credible manner.
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be anyone else stepping up to the plate to take up that challenge at the moment.